Total posts: 8,696
THBT: DEMOCRATS should NOMINATE LIZ CHENEY for SPEAKER of the HOUSE TOMORROW
- The rules do not require the Speaker to be a current member of Congress.
- If all Democrats voted for Cheney, only 6 Republicans would be needed and I'm pretty sure there's more than 6 Republicans who would support Cheney.
- She was recently third ranking member in the Republican Caucus so she is familiar with the position and its responsibilities.
- Cheney would be a complete end-run around BOTH feckless McCarthyites and dangerous insurrectionists but pleasing to Conservatives.
- Cheney would absolutely know how to manage and support the Conservative Republican agenda but she would have no truck with the insurrectionists or MAGA and she would likely block any frivolous investigations into the Jan 6th committee or its findings.
- As a non House Member, Cheney would not have a vote but she would represent true Republicanism and be a serious, patriotic stand-in if both the President and VP were unexpectedly unable to lead.
- Nobody would be really happy with Cheney, which suggests a good compromise for a split parliament.
Created:
Posted in:
As always, GP is a liar. Jordan is begging the alt-right to vote for McCarthy. But overall, I hope the Republicans never come to agreement on Speaker and fail to actually take power in the House until Democrats gain the majority.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Welp... Under [Trump's] leadership, Russia didn't attack anyone,
- False. Russia conducted attacks on the North Caucuses, Ingushetia, the Central African Republic, Ukraine, and Syria including one attack against US Forces in Syria during Trump's time in office.
- Russia conducted major cyberwarfare attacks in the US, France, UK, Germany, Poland, Romania, South Korea, Venezuala, and of course, the larges cyberwarfare campaign ever in Ukraine during Trump's time in office.
- Trump failed to condemn even one of these attacks, including the attack on the US Forces for which he was Commander in Chief
.ISIS was nearly demolished,
- Trump does deserve some credit here.
NATO paid their fair share,
- Smaller NATO countries did increase their burden sharing at Trump's urging but Trump's plan to withdraw from NATO was generally sidestepped and ignored by the Pentagon
the Middle East signed the Abraham Accords,
- Only Israel and the UAE signed the actual accords but 5 Muslim nations recognized Israeli sovereignity in its wake. I call that successful progress toward peace.
countries revised their tariffs,
- Trump unilateraly imposed hostile tarriffs that triggered a trade war with China and damaging retaliatory actions from Canada, Mexico, EU, India
- the Quarterly Journal of Economics estimated that U.S. consumers and firms who buy imports lost $51 billion (0.27% of GDP) as a result of the 2018 tariffs. After accounting for increases in government tariff revenue and gains to U.S. producers, the study authors estimated the aggregate U.S. real income loss to be $7.2 billion (0.04% of GDP). The study found that "retaliatory tariffs resulted in a 9.9% decline in U.S. exports within products." The study also found that workers in heavily Republican counties suffered the most from the trade war, because retaliatory tariffs focused on agricultural products.
- In CBO's estimation, the trade barriers put in place by the United States and its trading partners between January 2018 and January 2020 would reduce real GDP over the projection period. The effects of those barriers on trade flows, prices, and output are projected to peak during the first half of 2020 and then begin to subside. Tariffs are expected to reduce the level of real GDP by roughly 0.5 percent and raise consumer prices by 0.5 percent in 2020. As a result, tariffs are also projected to reduce average real household income by $1,277 (in 2019 dollars) in 2020. CBO expects the effect of trade barriers on output and prices to diminish over time as businesses continue to adjust their supply chains in response to the changes in the international trading environment
- Amounted to the largest tax increase in the US since Nixon, weighing heaviest on the rust belt and farmers.
- the U.S.'s trade deficit grew by $119 billion, reaching $621 billion, the highest it had been since 2008.
- Between .5-1% US real GDP lost
- unmitigated fucking disaster for no reason except Trump's economic ignorance
he negotiated a brand new trade agreement with Mexico and Canada,
- An International Monetary Fund (IMF) paper issued in late March 2019 found that the agreement would have "negligible" effects on the broad economy
- https://web.archive.org/web/20210214232349/https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/03/26/NAFTA-to-USMCA-What-is-Gained-46680
and he got foreign countries to invest hundreds of billions of dollars into the United States and sign contracts for hundreds of billions more.
- FROM "The Cost of Trump’s Economic Nationalism: A Loss of Foreign Investment in the United States"
- For a summary indicator, look at flows of foreign direct investment (FDI) into the United States in the first quarter of 2018 (the latest data available from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis) and in the same quarter of 2017 and 2016. In the first quarter of 2016, the total net inflow was $146.5 billion. For the same quarter in 2017, it was $89.7 billion. In 2018, it was down to $51.3 billion. This decline was not driven by changes in Chinese investment, which flows both ways and so contributes little to changes in the net figure. (In the first quarter of 2016, the United States saw a small net inflow of $4.5 billion from China, and in the same period in 2018, it saw a small net outflow to China of $300 million.)The falloff is a result of a general decline in the United States’ attractiveness as a place to make long-term business commitments.
- excluding the Pandemic's destruction of Foreign investment- Trump net foreign investment came in a little under zero increase
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_direct_investment#/media/File:World_Foreign_Direct_Investment.png
How much more should he have done to be considered "clever or sophisticated enough"?
- sophistication and cleverness have nothing with how much you do and everything to do with how intelligently you do it. Intelligent decision-making is almost always a team effort- a concept for which Trump possesses litte comprehension.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Public, you really are a very dishonest abuser of sources. You don't seem to be capable of recognizing objectivity or sources that don't agreee with your point of view.
Napoleon definitely is not considered a dictator. As per the Napoleon Foundation:
- How many objective sources did you have to reject to find that anti-history?
- Oh, so napoleon.org thinks" Dictator" is a bit too harsh? I notice if you ask hitler.org if Hitler was a dictator they similarly defer "No biased judgments, slanderous labels or childish name calling exist here as they do in most of the writings on this topic."
- BRITTANICA.COM: "Bonaparte imposed a dictatorship on France, but its true character was at first disguised by the constitution of the year VIII (4 Nivôse, year VIII; December 25, 1799), drawn up by Sieyès."
- WIKIPEDIA.COM: " The constitution preserved the appearance of a republic but, in reality, established a dictatorship"
- WASHINGTON POST: "Napoleon, who died 200 years ago, was a power-hungry dictator who championed education and freedom of religion."
- BIOGRAPHY.COM: "Dictators, including Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Napoleon and Kim Jong-un, reveal what happens when one person is given unchecked power."
- HISTORY CHANNEL: "By 1799, he had established himself at the top of a military dictatorship."
- NAPOLEON.ORG: "With Napoleon more than with any other, actions are sovereign. “I am entirely at the whim of the dictatorship of the event” he used to say. But this did not stop him from seeking in law and principles the justification for his presence in government and, for his descendants, the continuation of his dynasty."
- THOMAS JEFFERSON: "A ruthless tyrant, drenching Europe in blood to obtain through future time the character of the destroyer of mankind.
- THE COUNCIL of 500: "Bonaparte s’impatiente et décide d’intervenir. Il tient un discours maladroit devant le Conseil des Cinq-Cents, discours hué par les députés qui l’accusent de vouloir instaurer la dictature." The representatives are literally screaming "dictator" at Napoleon as he marches his troop into their parliament.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
IMHO aspirant dictators don't reduce regulations, cut taxes, hold billionaires accountable, deregulate and boost the private sector economy, cut the size of government, and then step down after losing election.
Napolean did all of this except that he stepped down after his senior generals mutinied and refused to command his army anymore. If there had been an election, Napolean would almost certainly have won and Paris would likely have been occupied by the Sixth Coalition.
Created:
Now- we should all be able to agree that, in spite of the pandemic, Biden accomplished more in his first two years than Trump accomplished in four.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
IMHO aspirant dictators don't reduce regulations, cut taxes, hold billionaires accountable, deregulate and boost the private sector economy, cut the size of government, and then step down after losing election.
- Trump didn't "step down after losing election" Trump refuses to this day to accept the reality that he lost.
- Other than that, actual dictators have done all those things. It's not what you do with power that makes you a dictator, it is how you refuse to share power with others that makes you a dictator.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
So then you agree Trump was not a dictator
Yes. No Liberals claim that Trump was a dictator, that is anonymous TikTokker's straw man/shorthand.
Trump might qualify for wannabe dictator or a failed aspirant to dictatorial powers.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
-->@oromagiI would like to debate you on whether Trump was a dictator. Since it is your claim. I will be the contender, you the instigator (you'll have to set it up so it works out this way)
POST #8: "A few of the many, many, many reasons Donald Trump is considered authoritarian (calling him a Dictator would suggest that his coup attempt succeeded):"
POST #3 : "A dictator is a political leader who possesses absolute power. "
- It would not be accurate to say that Trump possessed absolute power
- Based on Trump's oft-stated polticial opinions, admiration for the dictatorial powers of other leaders, refusal to abdicate power at the moment the US Constitution demanded, etc. it would be acurrate to say that Trump's leadership style was authoritarian and/or his political ambition was authoritarian in intent
A Dictator has to be competant enough to assume absolute power, Trump is not that.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
OK, so here's Christian Yelich posing nude for Sports Illustrated in 2019.
Is it fair to call Yelich a "sex worker." Would you be willing to say that to Yelich's face?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
If you want to see some great nude pictures of Melania, see https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/melania-trumps-nude-modelling-pictures-surface/news-story/996db14433896119b1c2f9fe09fd20c9
- Are you arguing that anybody photographed nude is "sex worker"? because I'm not buying that.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
None of the things she said Trump did is "unsubstantiated."
- Bullshit, I just unsubstantiated the first item on her list.
- Obviously, any policy that makes the world harder for the poorest 72% fails to meet the standard of an "accomplishment" in any public policy terms. Yes, Trump "accomplished" one of many assaults on the American middle class but that not an "accomplishment" that any historian will admire or that disproves Trump's authoritarian ambitions.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I don't pay federal taxes to be honest. I always put tax exempt. It hasn't bit me in the ass yet, but I assume it will at some point.
- I've never met a Republican who didn't cheat on his taxes.
- Next time you want to bitch about Democrats, remember that by paying my fair share of taxes, I'm picking up your tab- I pay your way.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Gish gallop,
Hypocrite. TWS kicks off with an anonymous, totally unsubstantiated list of accomplishments followed by an anonymous request, "what on earth did Trump do to be considered a dictator?"
TWS is more guilty than I of gish gallop for having linked to a blast of arguments first but you hypocritically attack me while ignoring TWS's greater fault. Please apologize for your hypocritical bias and try harder to objectively fault logical fallacies in arguments, especially those that reinforce your (damn ignorant) biases.
I will point out a retarded one.He has pursued policies that disproportionately benefit the wealthy and powerful.That wouldn't make him an authoritarian
- Of course it would. Democratic leaders are required to represent the interests of all citizens equally. Public Policy that favors the rich empowers the already powerful richer minority at the expense of the poorer majority.
The rich and powerful media conspired to destroy him. Big tech conspired to destroy him, practically every billionaire on the planet has made him enemy number one, including Soros, warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos and the owner of the las Angela's Clippers
- But that's not an argument against the established fact that Trump pursued policies that disproportionately benefitted the wealthy and powerfu.
- That's like arguing that Caesar did not give special treatment to Senators because a bunch of Senators assasinated him. Both facts were true. Senators got super special treatment from the Dictator and a bunch of those Senators were determined to kill Caesar anyway.
- Let's take for example anonymous TikTokker's first Trump accomplishment, "lowering taxes"
- The non-partisan Tax Policy Center determined:
- Compared to current law, 5% of taxpayers would pay more in 2018, 9% in 2025, and 53% in 2027.
- The top 1% of taxpayers (income over $732,800) would receive 8% of the benefit in 2018, 25% in 2025, and 83% in 2027.
- The top 5% (income over $307,900) would receive 43% of the benefit in 2018, 47% in 2025, and 99% in 2027.
- The top 20% (income over $149,400) would receive 65% of the benefit in 2018, 66% in 2025 and all of the benefit in 2027.
- The bottom 80% (income under $149,400) would receive 35% of the benefit in 2018, 34% in 2025 and none of the benefit in 2027, with some groups incurring costs.
- The third quintile (taxpayers in the 40th to 60th percentile with income between $48,600 and $86,100, a proxy for the "middle class") would receive 11% of the benefit in 2018 and 2025, but would incur a net cost in 2027.
- That is, in the long term, 99% of Trump "tax cut" is reserved for the richest 5% of Americans and taxes on the American Middle Class will actually increase to pay for those rich people smaller tax burden.
- Objectively, what Trump called a tax cut is in fact stealing from the middle class to pay the rich.
- The CBO forecast that inequality would worsen between 2016 and 2021, due to the Trump tax cuts and policies regarding means-tested transfers. Their report had several conclusions:
- After taxes and transfers, the income of the top 1% would grow more than other income groups, continuing previous trends.
- Income of households in the bottom 99% percent would be higher than at any time in the past, adjusted for inflation, also continuing previous trends.
- The Gini index would rise, indicating slowed reduction of inequality, reversing a trend from the latter part of the Obama administration.Means-tested transfer programs would contribute less to reducing inequality in 2021 than they did in 2016
- According to the CBO businesses receive a $890 billion benefit or 63%, individuals $441 billion or 31%, and estates $83 billion or 6%. U.S. corporations would likely use the extra after-tax income to repurchase shares or pay more dividends, which mainly flow to wealthy investors. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), "Mainstream estimates conclude that more than one-third of the benefit of corporate rate cuts flows to the top 1% of Americans, and 70% flows to the top fifth.
- According to the Tax Policy Center, the bill's effect on the financial well-being of taxpayers vary based on different financing assumptions, but approximately 72% of taxpayers would be worse off after Trump "tax cut", meaning benefits from tax cuts would be more than offset by reduced spending on their behalf
Maybe Trump cut anonymous TikTokker's taxes but he didn't cut yours and he didn't cut mine- he raised our taxes and gave it to the rich and famous people he considers more worthy Americans.
Created:
MELANIA TRUMP SETTLES DEFAMATION SUIT against DAILY MAIL
First Lady Melania Trump on Wednesday reached a settlement with the Daily Mail in a defamation suit she filed after the tabloid ran a story examining whether she worked as a prostitute before meeting President Donald Trump.
TIM RYAN / April 12, 2017
WASHINGTON (CN) - First Lady Melania Trump on Wednesday reached a settlement with the Daily Mail in a defamation suit she filed after the tabloid ran a story examining whether she worked as a prostitute before meeting President Donald Trump.
CNN reported on Wednesday that Trump will receive $2.9 million as part of the settlement.
The lawsuits, which were filed in September, went after the Daily Mail's online edition and Webster Tarpley, a Maryland blogger who ran a story raising questions about Trump's past on his Tarpley.net blog. The articles claimed that rather than working as a model, the first lady was actually a "high end escort," according to the 10-page lawsuit originally filed in Montgomery County Circuit Court.
"We accept that these allegations about Mrs. Trump are not true and we retract and withdraw them," The Daily Mail said in a joint statement with Trump, according to the Washington Post. "We apologize to Mrs. Trump for any distress that our publication caused her. To settle Mrs. Trump's two lawsuits against us, we have agreed to pay her damages and costs."
Though the suits were originally filed in a state court just outside of Washington, DC, Trump eventually had to refile the case in New York, where the Daily Mail prints. The suit originally asked for $150 million in compensatory and punitive damages.
Trump reached a settlement with Tarpley in February.
Trump was represented by Charles Harder, who is known as the lawyer who won Hulk Hogan's case against Gawker after the company released a sex tape of the pro wrestler. The case ultimately resulted in Gawker filing for bankruptcy.
In a statement, Harder's law firm, Harder Mirell, said, "The First Lady Melania Trump is very pleased that she has resolved this matter favorably with the Daily Mail, which has issued a full and complete retraction and apology for its false statements about her, and agreed to pay her millions of dollars in damages and full reimbursement of her legal fees costs.
"Mrs. Trump will remain vigilant to protect her good name and reputation from those who make false and defamatory statements about her," the statement added.
Created:
-->@oromagiDefinition of a dictator: A dictator is a political leader who possesses absolute power. Where in that definition does it require an accomplishment to be a dictator?
- my point exactly
She then asks what such qualifications made Trump a dictator, as he was called, despite not being one, and she noted things he achieved asking if those qualified him as a dictator like much of what the current administration does and continues to do would push them ever closer to that definition.
- exactly. The anonymous TikTokker says,
- "could someone remind me of literally anything trump did to be considered a dictator was it lowering taxes cutting regulations ending wars.... [list of accomplishment]"
- but a list of accomplishment neither proves nor disproves authoritarianism, does it? The premise of the argument is non sequitur.
- Could someone please remind me of literally anything Hitler did to be considered a dictator was it decreasing inflation, rebuilding the military, hosting the Olympics, building museums, reviving German heritage [list of accomplishments]. Obviously, the format of the argument does nothing to address whether a particularly leader was authoritarian. Anonymous TikTokker concludes,
- "i want to know i want you to show your anti-trump friends this and ask them what on earth trump did to be considered a dictator it's criminal how underreported his deeds were"
- Which YouTuber Officer Tatum summarizes as: "Woman DESTROYS "Dictator Trump" Narrative"
- and then you parrot as "Woman destroys liberal anti-trump narrative in 1min & 38 seconds"
- but none of you three discussed the Anti-Trump narrative and that narrative had nothing to do with the number of Trump's claimed accomplishments.
- Anonymous TikTokker asks the hypothetical"imagine if president trump would have sent the fbi to raid barack obama's personal residence just picture that for a moment they would have called him a dictator oh wait they called him that anyway"
- The answer to that question is that the hypothetical is insufficient, "what crimes is Obama being investigated for and what evidence exists that Obama committed those crimes?"
- The answer to the first essential consideration in Trump's case are that Trump is being investigated for violations of the Espionage Act regarding unauthorized retention of national defense information; destroying or concealing records "with the intent to impede obstruct or influence" federal government activity; and illegal removal or destruction of federal government records (without respect to cause).
- The answer to the second essential consideration is that the evidence is so fucking preponderant that the perp doesn't even deny doing those felonies some 400 times, he just falsely claims that ex-presidents are allowed to do those crimes and runs for President again to obstruct the Federal investigation.
- Now THERE is one good example of Trump's dictatorial tendencies: Trump claims that he is not subject to the same laws as you and me, that he a superior citizen to common Americans with special rights. THAT is thinking like a dictator.
The answer to Anonymous TikTokker's second question will engage American historians for centuries: what on earth trump did to be considered a dictator?
A few of the many, many, many reasons Donald Trump is considered authoritarian (calling him a Dictator would suggest that his coup attempt succeeded):
- He has advocated for violence against his opponents and the media.
- He has undermined the independence of the judiciary.
- He has disregarded the rule of law and encouraged lawlessness among his supporters.
- He has attacked the free press and freedom of speech.
- He has used his position to enrich himself and his family.
- He has undermined the peaceful transition of power.
- He has sought to interfere with elections.
- He has pursued baseless lawsuits to overturn the results of the election.
- He has sought to undermine the legitimacy of the election.
- He has promoted conspiracy theories and misinformation.
- He has undermined the independence of government agencies.
- He has rewarded loyalty over competence.
- He has disregarded science and expertise.
- He has undermined the legitimacy of international institutions.
- He has pursued an isolationist foreign policy.
- He has cozied up to authoritarian leaders and regimes.
- He has pursued policies that discriminate against marginalized groups.
- He has sought to use the power of the state to punish his enemies.
- He has encouraged his supporters to engage in hateful and divisive behavior.
- He has demonstrated a lack of respect for the norms and values of democracy.
- He has threatened to use military force against domestic protesters.
- He has sought to use his position to influence criminal investigations and prosecutions.
- He has advocated for torture and other forms of illegal interrogation.
- He has sought to undermine environmental regulations and protections.
- He has pursued policies that disproportionately benefit the wealthy and powerful.
- He has sought to undermine the Affordable Care Act and access to healthcare.
- He has taken steps to undermine the integrity of the census.
- He has sought to use the presidency for personal gain, including by promoting his own businesses.
- He has sought to limit access to information and transparency.
- He has pursued a policy of "zero tolerance" and separated families at the border, causing widespread suffering and trauma.
- He has repeatedly refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power.
- He has sought to undermine the integrity of the postal system.
- He has engaged in mass deportations and targeted immigration enforcement.
- He has sought to limit the ability of people to vote and participate in elections.
- He has sought to undermine the right to protest and free assembly.
- He has sought to restrict access to information and suppress scientific research.
- He has sought to undermine the independence of the Federal Reserve and other economic institutions.
- He has pursued a policy of "maximum pressure" and imposed economic sanctions that have caused suffering for ordinary people.
- He has sought to undermine the autonomy of Native American tribes and their rights.
- He has demonstrated a lack of empathy and concern for the well-being of others, including during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Created:
The whole argument rests on the rather foolish premise that dictators don't have accomplishments. Hitler, Stalin, Napolean, Caesar were all dictators but no historian would claim those four didn't accomplish quite a large number of objectives. WIthout any democratic checks and balances, dictators tend to have more accomplishments then law-abiding leaders. The anonymous TikTokker, the YouTuber and TWS all claim that if one can list Trump's accomplishment than the claim that Trump was authoritiarian stands disproved. If anything, the opposite is more true, never mind that most of the accomplishments listed aren't particularly admirable or pro-American or particularly products of Trump's work or ideology. We could argue the harms the 2017 Tax cuts inflicted on the economy or the harms of Trump's lazy capitutlation in Afghanistan and hand-off to an overburdened successor but the conclusion itself is obviously fallacious: Dictators can also list their accomplishments, a list of accomplishments does not argue against any leader's self-serving authoritarianism or manifest moral deficit.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
-->@oromagi
eriously they date their log books a certain way for example and year zero is when the Bavarian illuminati was. Founded. A lot of the symbolism and rituals are very similar etc.
- Wow you have log books for a secret society?
- Keeping records is not very wise practice for a secret society
- AMERICA’S SECRET ESTABLISHMENT – An introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones ( by Antony C. Sutton ) states:
- As The Order is a secret society it does not publish minutes or journals. As Rosenbaum suggests, “they don’t like people tampering and prying.”
Other than the fact these people publish names of their members many times,.
- Also not very secret
They are secret societies. 3 presidenta have been skull and bones member. Many other powerful people have been as well. This is a very small club with a hidden agenda.
- Delta Kappa Epsilon has had six presidents as members. Shall we assume that Delta Kappa Epsilon is also a secret society controlling the world.
- Ivy League colleges are not a secret society but graduates of those schools certainly go on to become the leaders in the most powerful nation on Earth and therefore control much of the world without any conspiracy at all. I remember Sun Microsystems used to have a BOB-best of the best program that recruited and funnelled Ivy League graduates straight into upper management. Frankly I could not discern any particular qualities for such advancement beyond ambition but that was how it worked at very modern tech company. Such dynamics likely explain the relationship between Ivy League schools and power without the need for any secrets or conspiracy and Skull & Bones is just as easily explained as a slice of that dynamic put under a microscope unnecessarily.
I am not fucking things up for Americans.
- I meant the conspirators
You can look at policies and see what their intentions are. Let's just imagine for a second that you are correct and organizations such as the Fabian society, skills and bones and the bilderburg don't exist. Then we can still see some sort of evil cooperation.
- If the Fabian society, BIlderburg, and Skull and Bones did not exist, other grouups with different names but roughly identical functions would have evolved into those places. Such organizations are an essential structural element of democracies- the machines by which consensus is acheived.
For example when people get deplatformed it isn't a slow trickle like is natural, but it looks like all organizations are working together in unison.
- Not a conspiracy. Once one company makes a decision likely to garner bad publicity, like-minded companies tend to follow quickly behind hoping the front-runner will take the brunt.
The same with how news stories come out and suddenly at the beginning of 2020 you see 50 organizations in unison pick up the phrase "build back better" like some sort of hive mind.
- Same reason people start saying "Make America Great Again" in 2016: it was a popular Presidential campaign slogan. Not a conspiracy.
I used to be a statanist, so I can pick up the imagery faster than you can but the following have obvious satanic imagery
1. 2001 a space Odyssey, particularly the beginning with the monkeys2. LucyIf you include gnostic imagery to be satanic then3. The matrix4. Free guy5. Eyes wide shut6. Mother7. Truman show8 dark City
- What is the relationship between a global conspiraccy that controls the world and Satanism or Hollywood. Are you now claiming that George W Bush and Paul Giamatti worship Satan?
Honestly there is too many to mention. These people have infiltrated media, politics and business though and if you look at my last round with RM in a recent debate, I lay out why they are pushing certain policies, which is consistent with the goals they laid out on the Georgia Guidestones.
- Well if thinking the Georgia Guidestones are sensible recommendations makes one a Satanist, then let's agree most rational people are Satanists in your book:
- Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
- Guide reproduction wisely – improving fitness and diversity.
- Unite humanity with a living new language.
- Rule passion – faith – tradition – and all things with tempered reason.
- Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
- Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
- Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
- Balance personal rights with social duties.
- Prize truth – beauty – love – seeking harmony with the infinite.
- Be not a cancer on the Earth – Leave room for nature – Leave room for nature.
- If that's what you call Satanism, then it is pretty easy to say that your mental illness is the source of your irratonal belief.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I don't have time to explain all the connections to you. It is my belief that the Bavarian illuminati went underground and survived as the skull and bones society, and for a brief period also has a lot of influence on free masonry.
- Classic wide-eyed conspiracy nut: "Dude! there's so many secret connections that I don't even have time to explain just one!"
No, I am explaining that the pilpul on whether the current secret societies running everything are named the illuminati is a red herring.
- Dude! I don't have details! I don't know names and shit. I just know for certain that secret societies are doing secret shit and I'm determined to fuck things up for every American for reasons I can't jutify or even explain!
Yeah, well those tribes exist. Ever heard of the Fabian society?
- Sure the Liberal London think tank that influenced Nehru's peaceful transition to Democracy, founded the London School of Economics and once headed by the great George Bernard Shaw? Nothing secret about those guys.
Did you ever hear about when the financiers secretly met on Jekyll island to screw over America and successfully did so?
- That's right, because YOU believe that the US Economy has been in a nosedive since that meeting in 1910. What a tragic century it has been for the American economy!
I had to drop out at 16 after being failed the prior year anyway because I was emancipated and won custody of my younger siblings after being placed in abusive foster homes.
- Yeah, it shows.
What part of civil studies covered which political philosophy was correct?
- Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, Federalist papers, Gettysburg Address
Loom through the debate portion of the website. Are there more Democrats calling for a complete ban on guns in that section, or are they asking for merely a couple more restrictions?
- Of the six debates calling for an outright gun ban 5 are by Alec (aka TheUnderdog) and one is by you. SInce neitther of you identify as Democrats, I've got to say Zero democrats calling for a complete gun ban versus more than 20 debates calling for background checks, semi-auto restrictions,etc.
I would agree that I am too ignorant to strongly hold an opinion
- That's really my only point. All of your opinions seem to be built on a foundation of misinformation and ignorance.
Trust me, when republicans really were in control, I hated them as well, but they have been losing since George Bush.
- Such a lie. You sucked Trump's cock so hard it would slough off into your mouth every couple of days and you would fall on your ass and cry because without Trump's dick in your mouth you didn't know how to think or feel about anything.
I can show you news article after news article about conservatives being cancelled for stupid shit. You can freely share your opinions in public. I don't have freedom, I am not allowed to.
- Cancelled is just a Republican word for what happends when people express unpopular opinions. That' just democracy for you: you are not being oppresed just because people are explaining to you that your opinon is selfish and narrow.
Look at Dennis Miller. He was canceled because he stated that a black quarterback was overrated because the media was racist.
- That was Rush Limbaugh, you boob. Limbaugh wasn't cancelled, he resigned in response to a chorus of booing. Miller's contract was not renewed because John Madden came over from FOX. Miller has a show on Putin's RT until Putin's attack on Ukraine forced Miller to resign in protest.
There was an attempt to cancel Robert Downey Jr. Because he stated that he was a republican one time like 15 years ago.
- It is so sad that he was never given a chance to play Ironman and be the best paid actor in the whole wide world in 2013, 2018, and again in 2019!
Tim Allen cannot get movie because of his political persuasion.
- Poor bastard had to settle for starring in and executive producing the top rated TV series this Christmas with those libtards at Disney
There was a canvasser for a republican in Florida recently attacked for being a conservative.
- You might also have mentioned that Christopher Rey Monzon aka Christopher Cedeno is Proud Boy and second generation Klan member with a long history of racial assaults in Hollywood, during the "Battle of New Orleans" and assaulting 17 year old DeAndre Harris at the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville.
- Here is a Twitter post of his captured by the Southern Poverty Law Center before he deleted all his ultra racist shit when his story went national and he was a paid and vetted campaigner for Marco Rubio;
- https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/cedeno_johnny_rebel.png
- I don't think he was attacked for being Conservative so much a being a famous ultraviolent Klansman agitating alone in a black neighborhood.
Just after the 2016 election, footage was coming out of antifa attacking elderly white trump supporters at protests. That girl that was on DDO, I think her name was Rosalina or something she ran for president with me. She was at a Maga event and was attacked by Democrats. She was on the front page of some newspapers showing a milkshake being hurled at her.
- Pretty vague....so you are saying that the Jan 6th coup was justified because some anonymous but probably liberal person threw a milkshake six year ago?
If I revealed my political opinions in person I would be physically attacked by Democrats and then I would lose my job. I know this is true because we have lots of examples of it happening.
- Well, you have expressed some insanely violent hate speech about black people, Jews, Police officers, etc. Certainly, I would think twice about hiring you for any public-facing job.
BTW, if a liberal is against economic interventionism, he would technically be for Laissez-faire capitalism,
- One of the pillars of Classical Liberal economics.
assuming he was pro 2nd amendment and pro not murdering unborn babies. What exactly would make him a liberal?
- By definition, Liberals believe that all men are born equal and with a right to be free. That is what being a Liberal means. The United States of America was explictly founded as the first Liberal nation on Earth. You can't be a sincere American without being a Liberal. All Liberals everywhere love the American Dream and the American success story. All the Founding Fathers identified as Liberals first and foremost. Starting in the 1990's FOX News began to educate the dumber half of Americans that Liberalism was bad and that Conservatism and Republicanism were somehow the opposite of Liberalism. While this obviously false and ridiculous many Americans have been brainwashed by Fox into thinking this way, including you. All Americans are LIberal by definition, whether or not they are educated enough to understand that truth. There's nothing exclusive about Liberalsim and Conservativism. In fact, many Americans used to identify as Liberal Conservatives.
How could that type of liberal even win an election?
- Joe Biden supports Free Trade, the Second Ammendment, and, as a lifelong practicing old-school Catholic, secretly hates abortion although he hasn't said so for twenty. Biden is a pretty traditional example of an American Liberal Conservative using the pre-FOX News definitions of those words.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
The skull and bones society has it's roots in the Bavarian illuminati.Totally false conspiracy theoryHow would you know? It isn't exactly an open society?
- And yet you told your lie. It is not as if there is any similarity between the two group's politics, or motivations, or maturity level.
However regardless of whether the current illuminati is connected with the Bavarian illuminati is of no importance.
- In other words, you concede yet another pointless lie.
We have over 100 groups claiming to be Rosicrucians, we don't claim Rosicrucianism died merely because none of them are the original group and are only loosely connected at best.
- Well that is different because it was never more than some silly people playing spooky games. That's like saying people playing ouija boards in the 19th century are connected to peole playing with ouija boards in the 21st century. Fine to say but your not claiming that any of those people are some secret tribe conspiring against you in continuity.
I guess that explains why he wasn't allowed to be president.
- I'm glad you did not deny "incompetant boob"
They didn't offer civics in any school I attended.
- Believe me, it shows. SInce that is a pretty basic requirement for US edcuation, I'll assume you were home schooled or educated outside of this county.
I had no ideal that Democrats were anti-abortion, opposed to gun restrictions and for deregulation. Maybe I was wrong about them
- That's because you lack education are are too lazy to learn the truth. Jimmy Carter is anti-abortion and famously dergulated trucking, airline, railroads, and banking. Bennie Thompson opposes background checks at gun shows. Only zealots and extremists assume that if you think women have a right to abortion, you must be pro-Eugenics. Only loons and goons think that support restriction on guns you must favor banning guns. In fact, the DNC explicitly supports the Second Ammendment but argues that there should be gun liscenses with similar hoops and fees and checks as a driver's liscence.
No, I just seen some random articles pop up on my feed. I don't watch the news. When I do it tends to be fake news (sensationalism, sound bites and covering topics in a very cosmetic way instead of going in depth) .
- Then in all fairness you should consider yourself too ignorant to hold an opinion, right? Let's agree you lack the basic information to hold an opinion on most subjects.
if I were to mention to a coworker that I believe in a small government restrained by the constitution, I would be fired for racism.
- Again- totally paranoid bullshit. You live in a dark closet and waste your life imagining monsters constructed from the vague noises you hear from the other side.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
-->@oromagiThe Illuminati is silly little anti-semetic conspircacy theory. You have done an excellent job of demonstrating why your deranged opinion is entirely unworthy of respect. Please seek medical attention for your personal, dangerous mental health problemsYep, call it antisemitic and you can easily sweep it under the rug.
- Sweeping bullshit under the rug is unhygienic. I suggest you use a pooper scooper on your bigoted religious beliefs followed by a vigorous pine-sol scrub.
The skull and bones society has it's roots in the Bavarian illuminati.
- Totally false conspiracy theory
So it still exists and George Bush as well as Al Gore are both in the skull and bones society and part of that illuminati.
- Al Gore went to Harvard, you incompetant boob
[Trump] is the voice of the people. He's a populist LOLl
- You get an F- in Americans civics. Please leave this country and make way for immigrants who earned their place by studying American civics.
You claim to be a Christian.
- False. I don't believe that God or Jesus are proven facts. I think the Sermon on the Mount is an excellent, succinct moral standard.
You know evil exists.
- False. Evil is a social construct bad people use to justify their harms against others. If there is evil in the world it is because you made it and continue to justify that evil with your contant streams of deceptions and crazy justifications for harming strangers.
Jeffrey Dahmer is not a good person, nor is near 100% of politicians who work together secretly against the public
- According to what I read on Redditt, Jeffrey Dahmer was your mom.
Americans are fat, it's going to take a few years of starving them to kill them off. I say they start dropping dead in 2025 once they work through their fat stores.
- In other words, you admit to telling YET ANOTHER total fucking lie without evidence. When will your shame destroy you?
1. Economic interventionism2. Banning of guns3. Eugenics through abortion and euthanasia
- Another fucked up lie. None of these things are on the Democratic Party Platform. They Republicans have refused to write a new Party Platform since 2012, since they essentially have no public agenda or plan for doing anything except highway robbery.
hey were literally trying to stop people with the exact same platform as Hitler. We even see antisemitism becoming very rampant in many leftist circles
- 100% lie.
Would you like to debate whether or not there are some teachers who assist their students in their transitioning ambitions? Dude I am on Reddit everydaym I know how you guys think.
- Here's what I know:
- Back in December '21, Tucker Carlson heavily promoted a religious mother's false claim that 2 teachers at a California school reportedly coached a 12 year old into a trans identity behind her parents back. The school also changed her name and pronouns without informing the parents. The Christian Mom made a speech in front of hundreds before the school board that every right-wing venue ran over the next days. The school district suspended the teacher for 6 months while adminstration officials and police investigated. The Mom filed two lawsuits.
- Six months later, police and school officials determined that every accusation made that Christian mom were purely slanderous, homophobic lies. The Mom was angry because her 11 year old daughter came out as bisexual to teachers and classmates but was too frightened of her mother's religious bigotry to come out at home. CA law prevents teachers from outing students to their parents without the student's permission and the 11 year old girl had explicitly requested that her mother remain uninformed. All of the trans shit that Tucker told you about was 100% in the Mom's imagination. The 11 year old girl was not trans, was not talking about transitioning, no teachers were talking to her about transitioning, she was just feeling some feelings about girls. The teachers returned to their jobs and got all their back pay.
- But FOX News and all the other lying Republican news media never corrected the lie they told about innocent teachers over and over on National news. Hundreds showed up to condemn those two teachers last December but only 10 people came to the meeting in July where the school board explained that it was the Christian Mom and not the gay friendly teachers who was doing all the lying and harming and humiliation and fear-mongering.
- A year later, you are in full witchhunt mode because Tucker told a lie and all the right-wing believed that lie was true without any interest in the facts and repeated that lie over and over and when the official truth came out, the right wing didn't even bother check in. Your need to believe you are under attack by the left was already established and no amount of fact-checking or telling truth was going to change your phony gay panic.
Created:
I should clarify on the above: None of the Trump candidates funded by Democrats won office. 5 Trump candidates with Dem backing lost primaries to moderate Republicans. Dems won all three races in Co., but GOP moderates won in VA 2nd and CA 21st.
So, about $410,000 of that $44 mil ended without the intended result- that's 99% effectiveness in spending. Seems like an smart and effective us of Dem funds. Especially when compared to the GOP who lost more than half of their expected 2022 campaign funds to Trump's personal bank account and ran out of money a couple of times.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
That's actually what loyal Americans were doing on January 6th.
- False. Most participants state they acted out of loyalty to Trump or the office of the President, not the US Constitution or the US Government. By itself, that is admission of failure of loyalty and oaths sworn. Americans don't follow one man against the people, ever.
We had evil people about to take power
- Evil is a supernatural claim. Your claim lacks any rational basis.
who would
- You're saying that the Jan 6th attackers knew the future? Another supernatural claims far away from the way reasonable men think.
make inflation so high that people are now starving in the streets,
- Flat out ignorant lie. Starvation is so rare in America that it is generally not tracked as a natural cause of death. An average of 100 Americans starve to death each year, almost all are children or elderly incapable of feeding themselves and mostly cases of intentional neglect by parents or other caregivers. Almost all starvation cases in the US are treated as homicide.
they would piss on the constitution
- Trump is the only American leader who has ever publicly state that the US Constitution was subordinate to Trump's personal need. Trump's adminstration is the only government entity to have formally developed and executed a plan to reject the Constitution as the final authority and ignore Constitutional mandates for personal gain. Trump's followers are are the only the US Citizens to have sucessfully interrupted a Constitutionally mandated process. Of all Presidents, only Trump has a documented sexual fetish involving urination.
and they would start passing mandates to allow teachers to encourage 7 year olds to transition and start the process of getting their dicks cut off.
- Pure mentally-ill fanstasy. I assume you have confused, conflated your sexual fantasies with reality.
There is nothing more American than protecting the constitution by attempting to prevent the illuminati who is inherently anti American from taking power
- WiKiPEDiA:
- The Order of the Illuminati was an Enlightenment-age secret society founded by university professor Adam Weishaupt on 1 May 1776, in Upper Bavaria, Germany. The movement consisted of advocates of freethought, secularism, liberalism, republicanism, and gender equality, recruited from the German Masonic Lodges, who sought to teach rationalism through mystery schools. In 1785, the order was infiltrated, broken up, and suppressed by the government agents of Charles Theodore, Elector of Bavaria, in his preemptive campaign to neutralize the threat of secret societies ever becoming hotbeds of conspiracies to overthrow the Bavarian monarchy and its state religion, Roman Catholicism. There is no evidence that the Bavarian Illuminati survived its suppression in 1785.
In the late 18th century, reactionary conspiracy theorists, such as Scottish physicist John Robison and French Jesuit priest Augustin Barruel, began speculating that the Illuminati had survived their suppression and become the masterminds behind the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. The Illuminati were accused of being subversives who were attempting to orchestrate a revolutionary wave secretly in Europe and the rest of the world to spread the most radical ideas and movements of the Enlightenment—anti-clericalism, anti-monarchism, and anti-patriarchalism—and to create a world noocracy and cult of reason. During the 19th century, fear of an Illuminati conspiracy was a real concern of the European ruling classes, and their oppressive reactions to this unfounded fear provoked in 1848 the very revolutions they sought to prevent.
During the interwar period of the 20th century, fascist propagandists, such as British revisionist historian Nesta Helen Webster and American socialite Edith Starr Miller, not only popularized the myth of an Illuminati conspiracy but claimed that it was a subversive secret society which served the Jewish elites that supposedly propped up both finance capitalism and Soviet communism in order to divide and rule the world. American evangelist Gerald Burton Winrod and other conspiracy theorists within the fundamentalist Christian movement in the United States—which emerged in the 1910s as a backlash against the principles of Enlightenment secular humanism, modernism, and liberalism—became the main channel of dissemination of Illuminati conspiracy theories in the U.S.. Right-wing populists, such as members of the John Birch Society, subsequently began speculating that some collegiate fraternities (Skull and Bones), gentlemen's clubs (Bohemian Club), and think tanks (Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission) of the American upper class are front organizations of the Illuminati, which they accuse of plotting to create a New World Order through a one-world government - The Illuminati is silly little anti-semetic conspircacy theory. You have done an excellent job of demonstrating why your deranged opinion is entirely unworthy of respect. Please seek medical attention for your personal, dangerous mental health problems.
Created:
DEMOCRATS SPENT MILLIONS BOOSTING ULTRA RIGHT CANDIDATES in MIDTERMS. THE STRATEGY WORKED
Savannah Kuchar
USA TODAY
Democratic groups and candidates spent millions on Republican primaries across the country to boost far-right, Trump-endorsed candidates in swing races. And the controversial strategy appears to have paid off for the party as nominees they promoted lost their races to a Democrat last week.
Banking that these far-right candidates would fail to capture the support of moderates and independents needed to win in November, Democratic political action committees and groups such as the Democratic Governors Association bought ads during party primaries earlier this year that highlighted Republican candidates' association with former President Trump.
The media buys also emphasized hard right positions from these Republicans' agendas, including stances on abortion and gun control legislation, calling several "too conservative" for their constituents as a ploy to appeal to the GOP base.
Although the approach drew criticism from some within their party who object to helping Trump-backed candidates no matter the reason, the results from Tuesday ultimately worked in Democrats' favor.
- New Hampshire Senate: The Democrat-affiliated Senate Majority PAC spent over $3 million in the New Hampshire Republican primary targeting GOP state Senator Chuck Morse, who had the backing of popular Republican Gov. Chris Sununu. Their funded attack ads helped drive voters towards election denier Don Bolduc, who lost in the general election to Democratic incumbent Maggie Hassan.
- New Hampshire House: In another New Hampshire primary, the Democrats Serve PAC spent more than $500,000 on ads opposing Republican Robert Burns, who aligned himself closely with Trump. Burns lost to Democrat Ann McLane Kuster by more than ten points in the general election in a race analysts initially predicted would be a toss-up.
- Michigan House: John Gibbs gained attention — and Republican primary voters — after the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spent about $435,000 on an ad calling the Trump-backed House candidate "too conservative." Gibbs won the primary against incumbent GOP Rep. Peter Meijer but lost on Tuesday to Democrat Hillary Scholten.
The strategy paid off in gubernatorial races too
- Illinois: Together with Democratic candidate J.B. Pritzker, the Democratic Governors Association poured around $35 million into swaying the Illinois Republican primary. Though Trump-backed Republican Darren Bailey won that June contest, the far-right nominee was defeated on Tuesday by Pritzker.
- Maryland: The Democratic Governors Association spent over a million on an ad during the Maryland gubernatorial primary as well, targeting Republican and "Trump's hand-picked candidate" Dan Cox. In the general election, Cox got clobbered by Democrat Wes Moore who won by around 25 points.
- Pennsylvania: Democratic candidate Josh Shapiro spent around $840,000 in the Republican primary for an attack ad calling state Senator Doug Mastriano "one of Donald Trump's strongest supporters." After winning the Republican nomination in May, Mastriano went on to lose handily to Shapiro in the general election this week.
Some Dem. backed candidates never made it to Nov. 8
Despite the strategy's success in general election outcomes, not all Democrats' efforts to skew primaries resulted in the desired effect:
- Colorado: The strategy failed Democrats in three Colorado races, after they spent a total of around $7 million to target far-right candidates in the Republican primaries for governor, Senate and the 8th district House seat.
- Virginia: In the Republican primary for Virginia's 2nd district, the Democrat-affiliated Super PAC Patriot Majority spent over $300,000 on an ad to highlight Jarome Bell's connection to Trump. Bell lost in June to Republican Jen Kiggans, who went on to win the seat this week, defeating Democrat and incumbent Elaine Luria.
- California: The House Majority PAC, a group affiliated with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, spent over $110,000 on California's 22nd district trying to boost Republican Chris Mathys. The Trump supporter lost his primary race, though, to incumbent David Valadao.
(So that documents 5 GOP candidates who won anyway)
Created:
Posted in:
What’s Your Preferred News Outlet(s)?
Int’l
BBC
South China Morning Post
Al Jazeera
Le Monde
National
NY Times
WashPo
Wall St Journal
LA Times
Sacramento Bee
Miami Herald
AP News
Reuters
NPR
New Yorker
The Atlantic
Politico
CBS for breaking news/Tv Feed
State and Local
NPR
The Denver Post
The Coloradoan
Westword
7News CBS local tv
And do you routinely watch/read any news outlets you generally disagree with?
South China Morning Post
Le Monde
Wall St Journal
The Denver Post
If I’m looking for oppo perspective - RT, FOX, RCP, The Hill
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
You have already long been a Hall of Famer in my opinion, Intel.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
My feeling is that you are not arguing in good faith. You state that America is on the brink of civil war but when your understanding of American culture is questioned, you criticize me for assuming you are paying attention to American culture. You justify Republican radicalization with fear of future pedophilia and when challenged, state that pedophilia is just a kink I haven't been indoctrinated to accept.
Let's conclude this by returning to your OP.
- You claim that the states are becoming different countries and offer this website as your only example.
- Obviously, there is nothing about this website that is particularly representative of America or Americans.
- You state that the only alternative is pluralism, with different states having different constitution, apparently entirely ignorant that the US is currently a highly pluralistic society and that each state was founded with its own constitution and set of laws.
- The United States is a federal system, which means that powers are divided between the national government and state governments, and that each state has its own constitution and legal system within the broader framework of the U.S. Constitution. This system allows for a diverse range of viewpoints and approaches to be represented, while still maintaining the unity and cohesion of the country as a whole. Most Americans agree that it is important to work towards finding solutions that respect the diversity of perspectives and experiences within the country, and that promote understanding and cooperation rather than division and conflict.
- It is important to recognize that civil war is a destructive and harmful event that should be avoided at all costs. It is never a desirable outcome, and there are always better options for resolving conflicts and addressing differences of opinion.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
-->@oromagiMark Meadows's corrupt and criminal conduct in undermining free and fair elections in the USA?If our elections can be undermined by Mark Meadows, then they are neither free nor fair.
- well that's obviously false. I assume you don't understand what the word "undermine" means.
- Anybody working to lessen the effectiveness of an election is undermining that election.
- For example, you undermine the US electoral process by pumping out false, compromising misinformation about US election regularly.
- Mark Meadows encouraged his charge to overthrow the US election by repeatedly whispering false voting information into his ear and never correcting even the President's wildest fantasies but Meadows failed to support even a single example of voting fraud during the investigations that followed.
- Furthermore, Mark Meadows and his wife were registered to vote in 3 different states while falsely accusing others of fraud.
- In spite of Meadows many nefarious plots, secret meetings, broken oaths and silly lies, the 2020 Election he was sworn to protect was freer and fairer than any prior presidential election.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
- Please help promote voting clarity by limiting posts to VOTING ONLY using roughly this format:
- YES or NO
- YES or NO
- QUESTIONS/CONCERNS/DISCUSSION/ARGUMENT/CAMPAIGNING are all encouraged and may be posted to new forum threads started by interested parties.
- I notice you set a couple of rules for this election which you have repeatedly, willfully ignored.
- I also notice you are running for President
- Why should any debater vote for a candidate who abuses the rules, even rules he set himself?
- You are trying to create a new rule to improve vote counting while simultaneously, deliberately fucking up the vote counting process with self-serving noise. Do we really want to create a new bureaucracy that behaves like rules are for suckers? That's how dictators are empowered.
- Let's agree that your hypocrisy is disqualifying
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
-->@oromagiWelp, as any good person would do:Cognitive warfare:Robots replacing people:Western IQ scores plummeting:NATO defense trainings in Western Europe:Election fraud indictments and convictions in the last few months:And that's just SOME of the ones from THIS YEAR.But I'm not a fucking chatbot, so what do I know about how to read and research things? Clearly a chatbot knows everything.
But you are a crazy rantbot. Do you have anything relevant to say on the topic of Mark Meadows's corrupt and criminal conduct in undermining free and fair elections in the USA?
Created:
Stockholders do have some influence on the policies and actions of a corporation, although the extent of that influence can vary depending on the specific circumstances. As owners of the company, stockholders have the right to vote on certain matters that affect the corporation, such as the election of board members or the approval of major business transactions. In addition, stockholders can express their views and concerns to the company's management and board of directors through various channels, such as attending shareholder meetings or contacting the company through its investor relations department.However, it is also true that the influence of individual stockholders can be limited, especially in large publicly traded companies where there may be thousands or even millions of shareholders. In such cases, the collective influence of stockholders may be more significant, and it is common for shareholders to join together in shareholder activist groups to advocate for specific goals or reforms.Additionally, corporate lobbyists, who are hired by companies to influence legislation and regulations, can play a significant role in shaping the agendas and actions of corporations. These lobbyists may work to advance the interests of the company and may not always align with the views of all the company's stockholders.
It is important for stockholders to be aware of the influence that corporate lobbyists may have on a company and to consider the potential impact of lobbying activities on the company's operations and reputation. Stockholders can also seek out information about a company's lobbying activities and consider this information when making investment decisions. Overall, it is important for stockholders to be informed and to actively participate in the governance of the company in order to have the greatest possible influence on its policies and actions.
Created:
Even stockholders don't really get a say about corporate lobbyist agendas. It's always the same agenda regardless of who is CEO at the time.
AI:
It is true that stockholders do not have direct control over the agendas of corporate lobbyists. However, they do have some influence on the direction of a company through their ownership stake and the ability to vote on certain issues at shareholder meetings. For example, stockholders can vote on the appointment of directors, who in turn appoint the CEO and other top executives. They can also vote on proposals related to corporate governance, such as executive compensation and environmental policies. In addition, stockholders can exert pressure on the company through their ownership stake, by selling their shares if they disagree with the company's actions or by engaging with management and other stakeholders to advocate for change. While stockholders may not have complete control over the agendas of corporate lobbyists, they do have some ability to shape the direction and policies of the company.
Created:
. The same people have been in power since FDR consolidated the lobbyists.
ChatGPT AI replies:
It's true that some politicians have been in power for a long time, but it's also important to note that the political landscape is constantly changing and there is always turnover in leadership. In the United States, term limits ensure that no one person can hold a certain office indefinitely. Additionally, elections provide opportunities for new candidates to come into power and bring new perspectives and approaches to governing. It's important to stay informed about current events and to participate in the political process by voting and advocating for the issues that matter to you.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
-->@IwantRooseveltagainThe news about meadows burning documents in the White House is in every major newspaper in the country.But what DIDN'T make the news was the fact that NATO admitted there is cognitive warfare going on in western countries, that the WEF is planning on removing people's jobs and replacing them with robots, and more.No. No. What REALLY fucking matters is some guy burned pieces of paper from a former president who lost an election more than 2 years ago. That is what is "news."Not the coming mass unemployment, the dumbing down of western intelligence, and the fact our own military is scared shitless that we don't have a defense against cognitive warfare, which makes people brainwashed and stupid. Fuck all that. That's not REAL news at all!Or how about this one? NATO just finished multiple defense trainings in countries that border Ukraine to test "defense readiness." If Russia is failing miserably in the Ukraine, then why suddenly have all these major war games in bordering countries?But, you know, keep talking about the "real" news of a commission jerking off to a has-been President who isn't even the frontrunner yet for 2024 and his cronies.Ignore, also, all the election fraud convictions, indictments, and more of both Democrats and Republicans that happened this year by the DOJ. That's not important either, apparently.Fuck off you ignorant buffoon.
ChatGPT AI replies:
It's important to stay informed about current events, but it's also important to fact-check and verify information before sharing it. The news about burned documents in the White House has been widely reported, but the other claims you made have not been substantiated and are not supported by reliable sources. It's important to critically evaluate the information we consume and to be mindful of the sources we trust. Misinformation can spread quickly and cause unnecessary confusion and harm. It's always a good idea to double-check information before sharing it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
So I fed it all the arguments from this debate and it did an incredible job of sorting out the main points and rebuttals and describing. It identified both arguments as well reasoned and well supported but flat out refused to express a preference for one relative to the other in terms of quality of reasoning, quality of sources. GPT thought that grammar was an inappropriate measure of quality argument.
Created:
The Committee also interviewed the Secret Service agent who was in the same car as Officer Robinson. That person shared a similar account, and
confirmed that he did not take issue with Officer Robinson’s testimony:
“[The driver of the Presidential car] said something to the effect of, ‘The
President is pretty adamant that he wants to go to the Capitol,’” the agent
said, recalling what he had heard on the 6th.99
In addition, the Committee interviewed the USSS Press Secretary, who communicated with both Engel and with the driver in the presidential
vehicle after Hutchinson appeared publicly. That witness indicated that
Engel’s account of the events confirmed that the President was indeed
angry, or furious.100 In fact, when asked about a reporter’s tweet indicating that sources within the Secret Service confirmed that “Trump was furious
about not being [able] to go to [the] Capitol with his supporters,” the Press Secretary said he “certainly corroborated it” with the reporter because
“that’s what I had been told, you know, that [the President] was upset, hewas agitated, about not being able to go[.]”101
In addition to the testimony above, the Committee has reviewed hundreds of thousands of new Secret Service documents, including many demonstrating that the Secret Service had been informed of potential violence at the Capitol before the Ellipse rally on January 6th. (These documents
were critical to our understanding of what the Secret Service and White
House knew about the threat to the Capitol on January 6th.) The Committee has also more recently conducted additional interviews with Engel and
Ornato, and has also interviewed the driver of the Presidential vehicle.
Both Engel and the driver 102 testified that, within 30 seconds of getting into the vehicle, the President asked if he could travel to the Capitol.103 This again is directly inconsistent with the account of events in Meadows’s book.
According to Engel, he told the President immediately that the move wasn’t
happening.104 The President was unhappy with Engel’s response and began“ pushing pretty hard to go.”105 The President repeatedly asked why he
could not go to the Capitol.106 Engel replied that the Secret Service “didn’t
have any people at the Capitol” to provide the President with appropriate
security.107 The President responded angrily, telling Engel and the driver
“I’m the President and I’ll decide where I get to go.”108 He reassured Engel
that “it would essentially be fine and that the people there [meaning the
people who were marching from the Ellipse to the Capitol at President
Trump’s instruction] were [Trump] supporters or something to that
effect,”109 According to the Secret Service agent driving the vehicle, the
President was “animated and irritated” about not going to the Capitol.110
According to Mr. Engel, he ultimately told the President that they would “assess what our options were and wait until we can get a plan in place
before we went down there.”111 We note that the driver’s account acknowledged President Trump’s anger to a greater degree than either Engel’s initial account in Spring 2022, or his more recent account in November 2022.
Engel did not characterize the exchange in the vehicle the way Hutchinson described the account she heard from Ornato, and indicated that he did not
recall President Trump gesturing toward him.112 Engel did not recall being present when Ornato gave either Hutchinson or the White House employee with national security responsibilities an accounting of the events.113 The
driver testified that he did not recall seeing what President Trump was
doing and did not recall whether there was movement.114
The Select Committee has great respect for the men and women of the Secret Service. That said, it is difficult to fully reconcile the accounts of several of the witnesses who provided information with what we heard from Engel and Ornato.115 But the principal factual point here is clear and undisputed: President Trump specifically and repeatedly requested to be taken to the Capitol. He was insistent and angry, and continued to push to travel to the Capitol even after returning to the White House.
The motorcade didn’t disband upon arriving to the White House, as
they usually do. Instead, they were instructed to stand by in case the President’s move to the Capitol did indeed happen.116 The Select Committee
received a document from the Secret Service that reflects that at 1:25 p.m.,
“PPD IS ADVISING THAT [THE PRESIDENT] IS PLANNING ON HOLDING ATTHE WHITE HOUSE FOR THE NEXT APPROXIMATE TWO HOURS, THENMOVING TO THE CAPITOL.”117 “They had not made a decision whether or
not we were going to transport the President to the Capitol,” Robinson wastold.118
Engel testified that he went to Ornato’s office when he returned to the West Wing in order to discuss a possible move to the Capitol by President
Trump.119 Given the deteriorating security conditions at the Capitol, it was
quickly determined that they could not safely transport the President
there.120 The motorcade waited on West Executive Drive approximately 40minutes before finally receiving word from the Secret Service that the move had been officially nixed. Internal Secret Service communications bear this out: Not until 1:55 p.m. did Engel notify other agents via email that “[w]e
are not doing an OTR to [the Capitol].”121
Created:
The JANUARY 6th REPORT
CHAPTER 7.3 The PRESIDENT’S ANGER when he COULD NOT MARCH to the CAPITOL
President Trump concluded his remarks at 1:10 p.m. Luna heard the President mention his intention to join the march to the Capitol “after he finished his remarks.”77 Just before the President got into his vehicle,
Meadows told him, “We’re going to work on it, sir.”78 President Trump
was seated in his motorcade vehicle by 1:17 p.m.79
The Committee received information informally from current and former members of the Secret Service and former White House staff relevant
to what happened next—what a number of witnesses have described as an “angry,” “irate,” or “furious” interaction in the Presidential vehicle
between the President and the Secret Service.80 That initial information,
received informally, shaped the Committee’s questioning of witnesses. The Committee’s principal concern was that the President actually intended to participate personally in the January 6th efforts at the Capitol, leading the effort to overturn the election either from inside the Chamber or from a
stage outside the Capitol. The Committee regarded those facts as important
because they are relevant to President Trump’s intent on January 6th. But a book published by Mark Meadows in November 2021 made the categorical
claim that the President never intended to travel to the Capitol that day.81
Because the Meadows book conflicted sharply with information that was
being received by the Committee, the Committee became increasingly wary that witnesses might intentionally conceal what happened.
In our initial informal discussion with the lead of the President’s detail,
Robert Engel confirmed that President Trump did wish to travel to the
Capitol from the Ellipse, but stated that he did not recall many other
details.82 But the Committee also received information from Kayleigh McEnany and Cassidy Hutchinson that also directly contradicted Mark Meadows’s book and provided considerably more detail. McEnany testified that President Trump did indeed wish to travel to the Capitol on January 6th,
and continued to have that goal even after returning from the Ellipse to the White House.83 McEnany, who spoke with President Trump shortly after here turned to the White House, recalls him expressing a desire to go to the
Capitol: “I recall him . . . saying that he wanted to physically walk and be apart of the march and then saying that he would ride the Beast if he needed to, ride in the Presidential limo.”84 When asked, McEnany confirmed that
“yes, he did seem sincere about wanting to do that.”85 Hutchinson’s testimony was generally consistent with the information the Select Committee was receiving informally. Like McEnany, Hutchinson confirmed that the
President did ask to be transported to Capitol Hill.86 Many other White
House witnesses would ultimately confirm that President Trump wished to travel to the Capitol on January 6th, comprehensively rebutting the false
statements in Meadows’s book.87
Part of Hutchinson’s account was a second-hand description of what
occurred in the Presidential vehicle, which built upon and was consistent
with information the Committee has received informally.
Hutchinson testified that, when she returned from the Ellipse, Ornato was standing outside his office door when he “waved me down,” Hutchinson said. The two of them walked into Ornato’s office, and he shut the door
behind them.88 Engel was already there, sitting in a chair “looking down,
kind of looking a little lost and kind of discombobulated.”89
According to Hutchinson, Ornato then recounted a struggle in the
President’s car.90 At no point during Ornato’s telling—or at any point
thereafter—did Engel indicate that what Ornato relayed was untrue.91
Another witness, a White House employee with national security
responsibilities, provided the Committee with a similar description: Ornato related the “irate” interaction in the presidential vehicle to this individual
in Ornato’s White House office with Engel present.92 And just as Hutchinson testified, this employee told the Select Committee that Engel listened to Ornato’s retelling of the episode and did not dispute it: “I don’t remember
his specific body language, but . . . [h]e did not deny the fact that the President was irate.”93 Engel testified that he does not recall either the conversation with Hutchinson or the similar conversation with the White House
employee with national security responsibilities.94
The Committee regarded both Hutchinson and the corroborating testimony by the White House employee with national security responsibilities
national security official as earnest and has no reason to conclude that
either had a reason to invent their accounts. A different Secret Service
agent, who served on a protective detail at the White House and was present in the presidential motorcade at the Ellipse, provided this view:
Committee Staff: Just a couple of additional questions. Ms. Hutchinson has suggested to the Committee that you sympathized with her after her testimony, and believed her account. Is that accurate?Witness: I have no—yeah, that’s accurate. I have no reason—I mean, we—we became friends. We worked—I worked every day with her for 6 months. Yeah, she became a friend of mine. We had a good working relationship. I have no reason—she’s never done me wrong. She’s never lied that I know of. I don’t have any reason—I don’t—I don’t distrust Ms. Hutchinson.95
Also, the White House employee with national security responsibilities
indicated that knowledge of the angry altercation in the Presidential vehicle was known within the White House—and was “[water] cooler talk.”96 In addition, Hutchinson has provided testimony to the Committee about
efforts by her prior counsel, who was apparently paid by a Trump-funded Cassidy
organization, to suggest that Hutchinson did not need to testify about the
issue in the presidential vehicle, could suggest that she “did not recall” it,
or should downplay it.97
To further corroborate the accounts received of President Trump’s
intent to travel to the Capitol, the Committee interviewed a member of the Metropolitan Police who was also present in the motorcade, Officer Mark Robinson. Officer Robinson confirmed that he was aware contemporaneously of the “heated discussion” that took place in the Presidential vehicle:
Committee Staff: And was there any description of what was occurring in the car?Mr. Robinson: No. Only that—the only description I received was that the President was upset and that he was adamant about going to the Capitol, and there was a heated discussion about that.Committee Staff: When you say “heated,” is that your word, or is that the word that was described by the TS agent?Mr. Robinson: No. The word described by the TS agent meaning that the President was upset, and he was saying there was a heated argument or discussion about going to the Capitol. . . .Mr. Schiff: So about how many times would you say you’ve been part of that motorcade with the President?Mr. Robinson: Probably over a hundred times.Mr. Schiff: And, in that hundred times, have you ever witnessed another discussion of an argument or a heated discussion with the President where the President was contradicting where he was supposed to go or what the Secret Service believed was safe?Mr. Robinson: No. 98
Created:
One day left to fulfill our very reasonable, modest, and properly determined majority mandated request.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
I wonder if you could get it to determine who it think won debate. GPT said it could given the criteria for winning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
-->@oromagiBut an honest history of America tells us that's not so. The left is a little more pro-gay, a little less pro-affirmative action than it was 50 years ago but in most ways the leftist majority holds the same beliefs they did 50 years ago.- Although I may not particularly disagree with you, the Right sees it differently.
- You don't disagree with me but still you persist in presenting an opinion you know to be false. Why?
Practices which are increasingly being adopted by the Liberals weren't a thing shortly prior, albeit the principles & ideals are the same.
- Don't you need to state what practices you are talking about?
Hence, practices such as incest & pedophilia, for instance, will eventually be adopted as well, according to the Liberal ideals.
- Pure mentally ill truth-hating bullshit. 9 out of 10 pedophiles are fellow family members or fellow church members. Children are far, far safer in the company of Liberal adults than Conservative adults. Statistically speaking, a young girl is much safer from attack with a gay stranger than with father, brother, uncle, or minister. The overwhelming amount of child sex assault comes from the big strength differences between adult males and young teenaged or preteen girls.
- All of the major anti-pedophilia legislation of the 20th and 21st century comes from the Left-wing, mostly from Feminists. Walter Mondale is credited with most of the laws cracking down on child sex assault in the late 20th century, overcoming fierce Conservative resistance to legislation. Throughout Europe, Liberals outlawed child sex over Conservative's strong objections.
- Modern MAGA is far more tolerant of child sex assault than any other political party in American History- Donald Trump's 20 year close friendship with Jeff Epstein and Alex Acosta's Republican cover-up, Matt Gaetz's relationship with 17 year old girls and 12 year old boys. Jim Jordan's cover-up of hundreds of sex assaults by Richard Strauss while Jordan was wrestling coach. Lauren Boebert's husband's conviction for exposing his genitals to underage girls while Boebert watched, the whole Republican Party knew about Mark Foley and covered it up, the same with Denny Hastert,
- Just look at how many Klan leaders and Neo-Nazis and other right-wing extremists go down for child rape and child pornography. The numbers are not a coincidence. Nor is it a coincidence that Jim Watkins, the most probable long-term personality behind QAnon and the QAnon servers' administrator also ran stormfront.com from the same server rack and also made his millions sneaking child porn into Asian markets. There is a strong relationship between right-wing extremism and child sex abuse.
- For every liberal you can find guilty of child sex assault I can hand you twenty conservatives so your delusional psychic predictions about Liberals and pedophilia can get fucked. If you want to stop pedophilia, put women into power.
I strongly doubt they would agree with what this happening today...
- Carter is still alive and strongly endorses the current Democrat platform. Your doubt is not evidence-based.
What exactly are those traditional values they departed from?
- an existent moral order that precedes political exigency
- family values
- free trade
- strong national defense, strong support for military alliances, particularly against European dictators and Russian autocrats.
- strong support for democracy and capitalism internationally
- Conservatives preserve custom, convention, continuity.
- strong defense of Western cultural tradition
- prudence is a virtue
- restraints on political power by loyal opposition
- change must be reconciled with tradition
- etc.
All this is pure drivel. But I'm all ears, tell me exactly in what sense were the ones more liberal than the others?
- Long story and we have established you are ignorant regarding most of world history but just look at the increases in percentage of citizens, stakeholders in the economy, individual and property rights, power sharing.
Justice & Equality are contradictory notions, by definition. To have one is necessarily not to have the other.
- Sorry, bud. You'll never be an American. America is founded on the principle of justice for all, equality as the just state.
Yet, the liberal secular modern West is vastly more authoritarian than virtually any government system in History.
- ridiculous and ignorant
Obviously false. Look at Biden's recent compromises with Manchin on permitting deals and new oil pipelines. Biden pisses off the Left-wing more than the Right. Pelosi put Cheney in charge of the Jan 6th hearings to make sure that the non-radical Republican party had its say. Only MAGA rejects sharing power, as is evident in the knife fights they are about to have over the Speakership and then the 2024 Nomination.- This is childish nonsense.
- sad little ad hom
- Blahblahblah. Law IS force, if you don't like it, then disobey it & see.
- seems like you've given up
T Doesn't change the fact that "American ideals" is a meaningless label. Sure enough, for someone who hold these values so high & dear you incessantly avoid having to defend them in a debate.
- clearly, you have not read much of this website over the past three years
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/3677-the-usfg-should-decertify-the-2020-election
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/3681-forced-integration-should-have-not-been-done
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/3665-the-aug-8th-fbi-search-of-mar-a-lago-was-due-process
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/3593-the-jan-6th-killing-of-ashli-babbitt-was-lawful-and-appropriate-to-circumstance
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/3563-the-2020-election-was-not-stolen
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/1816-death-penalty-solely-for-murder
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/3450-which-were-worse-the-blm-protests-riots-or-the-january-6th-capitol-protests-riots-atoromag
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/3482-are-races-equal
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/3365-free-speech-should-not-include-hate-speech
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/2532-qanon-is-bullshit
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/2154-americans-ought-to-feel-national-pride-7-42k-characters
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/1600-is-the-only-way-to-get-rid-of-trump-a-violent-revolution-he-seems-intent-of-a-coup
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/1589-california-should-secede
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/724-life-liberty-and-the-pursuit-of-happiness
You claimed current trends are evidence for future trends
- You claimed gay marriage was evidence of future pedophilia
What does that have to do with what I said? Absolutely nothing.
- You said white christians were easily turned, I pointed out that is a rapidly shrinking demo. Try to keep up.
Reason why the West are eager to spread democracy across the world, for it's much easier to interfere with elections & spread propaganda to remove disobedient governments in case of democracy, than to send troops when you have a dictatorship.
- non-sequitur
I take this as a concession.
- because you fail to comprehend
You keep forgetting I am not American nor am I bound by American propaganda.
- non-sequitur
Obviously false. All of the longest lasting continuous government in the world today are Liberal Republics. Most autocracies die with their dictator- Russia will soon be wanting a new government, for example.
What exactly is your idea of long lasting government? The Abbasids lasted 750 years, the Ottomans 600 years...
- Improve your reading comprehension: I said "continuous government in the world today" Abbasids and Ottomans are no longer in the world today but I don't expect that you have noticed.
What does any of this have to do with what I said?!!
- You said Capitalism is unsustainable. I pointed out that Capitalism is human character so always present in every human society. Don't know how you failed to comprehend.
World History =/= American History. You people live in a giant bubble, you have absolutely no clue. But you feel you're right, then you might wanna defend your beliefs in a debate, which you keep avoiding.
- non-sequitur straw man. You said the American Revolution was historically inconsequential. I pointed out your historical illiteracy.
Created:
I don't believe I had mainstream politicians supporting me last year
last year, you had no respect for mainstream politicians
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
the idea that there’s going to be a civil war in the United States any time soon is absurd
- illuminating comparison
- good point about state/local representation
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
-->@oromagiI was thinking more along the lines of like online gift cards or something.
yes, exactly
Created:
A debate site FREE from cynical campaign hype
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Vermin Supreme officially endorses me as site president.Who will endorse me next?
- I did kind of wonder what Greyparrot looked like
- You should call yourselves Vermin and the MIte Supremacists
- I'm gonna name my pony "WYLTED gets JiLTED AGAIN"
Created:
Posted in:
At least he did not demand 10 percent for the Big Guy.
naw, that was Giuliani
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
That's exactly how you look to those on the Right, to whom it is the Left that is becoming more radicalized... Indeed.
- But an honest history of America tells us that's not so. The left is a little more pro-gay, a little less pro-affirmative action than it was 50 years ago but in most ways the leftist majority holds the same beliefs they did 50 years ago. American Leftism is still in good alignment with the politics of Roosevelt and LBJ. Jimmy Carter is still a beloved grand old man within the Democratic Party. The Republican Party just threw out Liz Cheney, and considers McCain and Romney RINOs with no place in the radically reformatted Republican Party. Bush, Reagan, Nixon have no place in the modern Republican Party. When Barry Goldwater ran for President in '64 he was the absolute extreme Right of acceptable Americanism post-McCarthy and by 1995, that same Goldwater told the GOP " "Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have." Justice John Paul Stevens often noted that he was appointed in 1975 as the most Conservative member of the Supreme Court and retired in 2010 as the most Liberal member of that same court without ever changing a single political principle.
- The Right WIng can play "I'm rubber, you're glue" all they want but the fact is that the Right Wing has departed from traditional American values.
You're assuming support for liberal practices will indefinitely grow, which isn't necessarily the case.
- There is a pendulum quality to history across centuries, from left to right and back again but there also a decisive leftist narrative. Greece was more liberal than Egypt. Rome was more Liberal than Greece. The Ummayad Caliphate was more liberal than Rome. The Renaissance was more liberal than the Caliphate. The Revolutionaries were more liberal than the Renaissance, etc. As Martin Luther King noted, “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” That justice is always more free and more equal and therefore more liberal than the generation before. Authoritarians seize back power now and again but history and technology and sheer fucking numbers make authoritarianism increasingly less effective and every swing right a little bit shorter.
- Libs must be authoritarian followers then.
- Obviously false. Look at Biden's recent compromises with Manchin on permitting deals and new oil pipelines. Biden pisses off the Left-wing more than the Right. Pelosi put Cheney in charge of the Jan 6th hearings to make sure that the non-radical Republican party had its say. Only MAGA rejects sharing power, as is evident in the knife fights they are about to have over the Speakership and then the 2024 Nomination.
By definition, Law IS force. So, would you be fine with having those ideals Law?
- Only radicals obey the law from fear of force. Most Americans don't aspire to criminal acts and see the police as protective.
"American ideals"... are just empty meaningless labels.
- That's quite false and quite revealing about your values.
- Florida says otherwise. Florida was Left leaning just a couple years ago.
- but Georgia is more representative of future demographic trends and swinging left.
It's much easier & much quicker to make Whites, Republicans &/or Christians turn conservative, than to liberalize them.
- 20 million few Americans identified as White in 2020 then 2010.
- 12% fewer Americans identify as Christian than ten years ago
This is exactly why Democracy is a shit system, easily penetrable by enemies.
- The very fact that you are willing to call McCain and Romney "enemies of America" and "the failure of Democracy" demonstrates an fast moving and unsustainable radicalism. These statements are totally out of alignment with American values.
only to the violence-minded- That explains your History.
- agreed
It takes a certain mindset of absolute self-righteousness & totalitarianism to consider others who disagree with you ruling themselves according to their own ideals equivalent to you ruling them according to ideals other than yours.
- Yeah but only fascists think that way. Liberals know governments can never live up to individual idealism and don't look to government to represent their values.
Indeed, which is why the only way you know to convince others is to force your ideals on them, exclude their views from your institutions & impose yours by force of law or violence.
- Liberals wrote the Bill of Rights to prevent exactly that. Liberals don't play that.
Having such a caricatural view of those who don't share your ideals does not in any way refute or undo their ideals.
- Nor is your critique any kind of rebuttal
Liberalism is unsustainable, by design
- Obviously false. All of the longest lasting continuous government in the world today are Liberal Republics. Most autocracies die with their dictator- Russia will soon be wanting a new government, for example.
Among the Whites you mentioned, fertility is at half replacement thanks to Liberalism,
- Our Republic is older than the notion of "Whiteness" and will endure long beyond that social construct. There is nothing about America that inherently White or Christian or male.
As to Capitalism in the modern Western sense, which is to maximize present & private benefits, is too unsustainable, by design.
- Capitalism is an economic term describing the competitive aspect in human nature. Capitalism exists whether governments want it or not, as Russia and China soon discovered in the 20th century. You can harness competition to the good of your economy or you can suppress competition for economic harm but you can't kill that human instinct any more than you can kill our instinct for charity or teamwork or self-improvement.
If you mean by 'instrument' the art of deception that is to shout large promises & deliver meager results & to make-up pretty labels to disguise the same old ugly meanings, then I wholeheartedly agree. Shout "all men are created equal" then proceed to exclude all but some men: Blacks, Irish, Catholics... &/or non-Nationals.
- You think the American Revolution produced "meager results"? Damn, you really don't know the first fucking thing about world history, do you?
Created: